Bob Zimmer

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, I guess, for his response as I did not hear a question there. I guess the only problem that he has with it is that it is moving out of his own province to Dartmouth.

Essentially, the same quality of testing that we do at CFIA will still be there but it will just be in Dartmouth instead of his home province. I am not sure how that answers his question but the same proficiency that is there will still be there in the future.

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Medicine Hat.

I appreciate this time to talk about a topic that affects each and every one of us personally, and that is food safety. Just like every other Canadian I want to be able to sit down and be assured that the food on my plate is safe. That is why it is so important that I tell the House about the commitment that this government has made to the health and safety of Canadians and to having one of the best food safety systems in the world. This commitment stands true following budget 2012.

Here is the most important thing that I have to say today. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not reduced and will not reduce staff or cut programs that would in any way place the health and safety of Canadians at risk. The opposition and union bosses have shamefully suggested that the decision made in March in the budget, and the agency's overall modernization agenda, are intended to reduce Canada's investment in food safety or somehow diminish the agency's role in it. This is completely and utterly incorrect. Our government is fully committed to modernizing our food safety system and the opposition should get on board for the good of all Canadians.

Budget 2012 identified funding of $51 million over two years for the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for key food safety initiatives.

We all know change is difficult, especially the new third party in the House. But in this case, as was the case for the Liberal Party in the last election, change is necessary. The risks associated with the food supply are constantly changing and the changes being undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will allow the agency to focus its resources where they are most needed.

Budget 2012 decisions affecting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were founded on three key principles: create no reduction or impact on food safety capacity, minimize the effect on the front line in non-food safety related activities, and reduce administrative costs through shared services and other efficiency measures.

I would like to explain how the agency will adjust some programs for efficiency without compromising food safety or other services provided to the public. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency identified a number of opportunities to reduce costs associated with management, administration and other internal functions. In some cases the agency has found better ways to operate. I know this is difficult for union bosses and the opposition to accept, but we know taxpayers appreciate that we are seeking to use their money more responsibly.

The reduction of internal costs represents approximately 50% of all the agency's reduction initiatives. The truth is that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is reducing its executive workforce and is standardizing executive and management support organizations to be more efficient and to eliminate inconsistencies in tasks, levels and classification of administrative staff.

Corporate support for the agency's recently adopted internal governance structure will also be streamlined. This corporate support currently rests in various parts of the organization. Processes and services associated with a range of internal activities will be streamlined. These include human resources, accounting, corporate management, business transformation, audit and evaluation, and communications. The agency will be reducing expenditures associated with professional service contracts and other external costs by $4 million annually.

For some reason the Liberals pretend that they have never found, and would never find, savings in the budget. The truth was revealed on October 27, 1999, in the Telegraph-Journal, and I quote:

Allan Rock and his colleagues are systematically dismantling Health Canada's enforcement of public health and food-safety standards...systematically reducing the number of food inspectors in the field.

That is from the former Liberal government. The Liberals forget their history and are doomed to repeat their history of being relegated to third place election after election.

Another way efficiencies will be realized is by eliminating duplication and saving on transportation costs.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency already share national headquarter facilities. They will eliminate duplication in certain corporate services in the areas of information technology, communications, human resources and real property services. In addition, the two organizations will merge related services. They will also pursue opportunities to collaborate on costs related to maintaining fleet vehicles.

I would like to explain a little more about the thoughts behind planned efficiencies. Over time, businesses expand, start up and close. The traffic of products changes. Industry and producers end up, for example, using alternate inspection stations.

Business processes also change and new technologies emerge, reducing the need for Canadian food inspection staff to be in close proximity to certain regulated parties. These changes have created opportunities for the agency to reduce operating costs by consolidating office space and divesting quarantine/inspection stations that are not being used any more.

Currently, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a number of administrative offices across the country that will be combined or reduced. The agency also has three quarantine/inspection stations that will no longer be used: the Monchy Quarantine/Inspection Station in Saskatchewan, the Coutts Quarantine/Inspection Station in Alberta and the Nisku Quarantine/Inspection Station in Alberta. The agency will consolidate a number of offices and divest three inspection stations to optimize the use of its office space and increase administrative efficiency. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency services will be maintained, regardless of which office is considered for consolidation. Only the location will change.

Similarly, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will consolidate the coast guard sub-centre in Quebec City. DFO remains dedicated to the safety of all Canadians in ensuring that timely and appropriate maritime search and rescue coordination and response services are available to all mariners.

Public safety is, and always will be, an important government priority. In both instances, service to Canadians will not be impacted as a result of any office consolidation. The CFIA initiative is expected to be fully implemented by 2014-15. It will not compromise food safety. Rather, this initiative is directed at gaining efficiencies and cost savings without impacting service delivery.

Similarly, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will consolidate some of its laboratory services in both the east and the west to continue to provide the highest quality of service possible in an efficient and effective manner. In eastern Canada, current activities at the agency's laboratory in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador will be transferred to two Canadian Food Inspection Agency facilities in Charlottetown, P.E.I. and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

These facilities are more modern and better equipped to handle the complex food and plant diagnostic testing required by industry in support of food safety and market access. The St. John's facility is in need of significant upgrades and investment to maintain current services, while the Charlottetown laboratory offers access to more modern facilities, equipment and greenhouses. It also has a highly secure bio-containment space that will enhance service delivery in both diagnostics and research support. The Dartmouth laboratory has molecular diagnostic capability and multiple high-tech analytical chemistry instruments that are not available in St. John's. Food safety and fertilizer testing will move to the Dartmouth lab while remaining plant health work will move to the Charlottetown lab.

None of these changes will impact food safety in any way. I fail to understand how the opposition members think that verifying quality of fertilizer has anything to do with food safety. A lot could be said for fertilizer.

In British Columbia, my home province, the agency will be moving its activities from the Centre for Plant Health at the Sidney laboratory to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research station in Summerland. This move will ensure the important work is carried out in a modern, better equipped facility with a larger pool of scientists working together. No disruption or change to levels of service will result from this change.

The key word here is “change”, but managed changed, responsible change for the good. Through these actions and the resulting efficiencies, this government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to having one of the best food safety systems in the world. The opposition is stuck in the past and needs to wake up and support the government's plan to modernize and improve even further our world-class safety system.

[Immigration, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, our government announced changes to the best weeks EI pilot project to better align this program with local labour market conditions.

Would the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development inform the House about how this new national, legislated approach will make the EI program more fair and responsive to labour market conditions throughout the country, while removing disincentives to work in low unemployment areas like my riding of Prince George—Peace River?

[Lakeland Mills Sawmill, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on April 28 we mark the National Day of Mourning, the day we remember those killed or injured while in the workplace.

Our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with those affected by Monday night's explosion and fire at the Lakeland Mills sawmill in Prince George in northeastern B.C.

We were all deeply saddened by the news of the workers who passed away due to their injuries, Alan Little and Glenn Francis Roche, and also those who continue to fight for their lives. These are people who went to work to provide for their families and to make our province and country a better place in which to live.

We are known in northern B.C. for our strength and resiliency, and after this devastating event, we will need to rely on these traits now more than ever. During this difficult time, I have seen our community come together and draw upon this strength, determined to support one another as we grieve this terrible loss.

I ask all members to join me in offering our condolences to the workers and their families who have been sadly affected by this tragedy.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again, our bill seeks to stem that huge flow that is seeking to abuse our asylum system.

Certainly, as the hon. member mentioned, there are other situations. They can be addressed within a particular act. Just because a country is designated a safe country does not mean they do not have other means to get to Canada. They do. They have other options open to them. It does not mean we are closing the door to them, but it would just be done in a different way.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, safe country designation, as it is defined, is pretty clear. Basically, it seeks to stem the abuse of the asylum system. If people from foreign countries want to immigrate to Canada, they are more than welcome to go through that process, but what we are seeing now is that a huge flow of people want to immigrate to this country in a faster way, or maybe through the side door, and we are trying to stem that tide by having the safe country designation.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member is seeking to deliberately create fear in the immigration system, but simply put, some of the criteria that define safe countries are that they have independent judicial systems, practise democratic rights and freedoms and have political and legal mechanisms to redress infringements of those rights and freedoms.

Basically, the criteria are defined as to what a safe country is and is not, and those are what the minister will operate under. The limits are clearly laid out, and a safe country is well defined.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the importance of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. This legislation would improve the Balanced Refugee Reform Act by providing new measures which would ensure a fast and fairer refugee determination process.

Our Conservative government has increased the number of refugees that will resettle every year by welcoming an additional 2,500 people for a total of 14,500 individuals. Canada resettles more refugees than any other G20 nation. The fact is our refugee system is open to abuse and this is undermining Canadians' faith in our generous system. Bill C-31 would put an end to the systematic exploitation of our asylum system and prevent abuse of Canadians' generosity and goodwill. It is in the best interests of all fair-minded, hard-working taxpaying Canadians that this House should pass Bill C-31. Let us examine the reasons this bill is so important.

Bill C-31 would restore the integrity of the Canadian asylum system by enhancing opportunities for bona fide refugees to have their claims addressed in a timely manner. Currently, the number of false claims, namely from democratic countries in the European Union, is overwhelming our system. The sheer volume of claimants precludes officials from focusing their attention on those legitimate refugees who are in true need of our assistance.

It astounds me that in 2011 the number of refugee claims from the EU was greater than the number of claims from Africa and Asia. Indeed, 23%, or almost one-quarter of all claims, now come from EU nationals. Canada's top source country for refugee claims is not a country in Africa or Asia, but Hungary. Moreover, virtually all refugee claims made by EU nationals are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. These bogus claims cost hard-working taxpaying Canadians an outrageous $170 million per year. For this reason, Bill C-31 would improve the system by recognizing that there are qualitative differences among countries and their general attitudes toward human rights and the rule of law. The bill responds to the differences by designating some countries as safe.

Under Bill C-31, the factors that would lead a country to be designated as safe would be clearly outlined both in law and in regulations. The most important factors are objective in that they refer to the actual acceptance rates of claims from a given country. In other words, the designation of a country as safe would be based on the results of decisions taken by asylum claimants themselves, such as the rate at which they abandon their own claims as well as the decisions rendered by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board.

Unlike the Balanced Refugee Reform Act which has quantitative and qualitative criteria specified only in regulation, Bill C-31 would enshrine these factors in legislation, leaving objectively verifiable quantitative factors to be set out in a ministerial order. As such, the criteria used to prompt a review of a country's designation would become more transparent and accountable than they would have been under previous legislation. For example, quantitative factors would be specified in a ministerial order and include assessments where: 60% or more of total asylum claims from a country are withdrawn or abandoned by the claimants; 75% or more of total asylum claims from a country are rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. These qualitative factors enshrined in the form of legislation would look to universally accepted democratic principles such as whether the safe country has an independent judicial system, practises basic democratic rights and freedoms and has political and legal mechanisms to redress infringements of those rights and freedoms, and/or allows civil society organizations to exist and flourish.

As I have outlined above, this bill would repair our broken asylum system by stemming the flood of obvious baseless applications and putting in place a process that can ensure a fast and fair determination of legitimate applications simply by distinguishing between safe democratic countries and states with oppressive brutal regimes.

This is also a piece of legislation that respects the rule of law by affording all claimants, including failed claimants from safe countries, the right to judicial review. Every failed claimant would have access to at least one level of appeal. People deemed in need of protection would not be returned to the country from which they fled. Furthermore, under Bill C-31 the majority of refugee claimants would gain access to an additional level of appeal, specifically the refugee appeal division, for the first time.

Canadians pride themselves on being a compassionate society, as well as fair-minded and just, and they would not tolerate repatriation of foreign nationals knowing that persecution and harm would befall them, so the appeal mechanism can respond to uniquely exceptional circumstances. At the same time, this cropping of the current massive applications for appeals would curb the abuse of Canadians' generosity and prevent contempt of our legal system.

Furthermore, under this legislation, Canada would remain a safe haven for genuine refugees seeking asylum. However, claimants who have been involved in acts of serious criminality will not be welcomed into this country. Whereas the current system bases serious criminality on the more arbitrary measure of the length of jail sentence imposed, Bill C-31 rightly bases serious criminality on the specific crime the claimant actually committed, as defined under the Canadian Criminal Code.

This is also in line with the definition of serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which states that a serious criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime which, under Canadian law, is punishable by a jail sentence of at least 10 years. As such, political prisoners are not and will not be barred from making refugee claims.

Reforms to the Canadian refugee system are much needed and enjoy broad-based support. This government has listened carefully to Canadians who seek restoration of a fair and balanced refugee system that protects Canadian values of integrity, compassion and fair play. I submit that the enactment of this proposed bill would go a long way in securing those values.

Let us listen to what others are saying. Our colleague, the former NDP immigration critic from Vancouver Kingsway, has recognized the flaws in the current system. He has spoken of the need to “build a system that has a fast and fair determination process”. Indeed, he went further and acknowledged:

And that’s something that I’ll give [the Minister] credit for. I do think that’s what his intention has been all along. And we all want to work towards that.

Furthermore, a Globe and Mail editorial dated February 17, 2012 reads:

The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries such as Mexico and Hungary that are democracies with respect for basic rights and freedoms...

Fast-tracking refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are promptly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse.

In conclusion, I am thankful for being given the opportunity to speak to the merits of Bill C-10. I would like to thank my esteemed colleague, the hon. minister, for introducing this important piece of legislation and for being in the House during this debate. It is in the best interests of legitimate asylum seekers that we should pass this bill to bring much-needed change to our broken asylum system, and it is in the best interests of Canadians as well. I urge all members of the House to join me in giving support to Bill C-31's passage.

[25th Anniversary of Man in Motion World Tour, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while in my riding of Prince George—Peace River last week, I had the honour and privilege of being a part of two Rick Hansen 25th Anniversary events.

It was 25 years ago that Rick Hansen began his Man in Motion tour inspiring a generation of Canadians to be the best they could be.

At both events last week, it was clear that Rick Hansen, a true Canadian hero to all of us, is still inspiring us to dream big and to celebrate those who are making a difference in our communities.

To that end, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the organizers of last week's festivities. It is with a great sense of pride that I offer my congratulations to Patricia Marshall and Ann Lewis in Prince George and Lori and Bob Slater in Fort St. John for their dedication and commitment to ensuring both events were successful.

Thanks again, Rick Hansen and all who continue to make such a difference.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to clarify one thing that he said. I believe he said that the work stoppage would have no effect on northern Canadians.

I am from a riding in northern B.C. It is almost exclusively serviced by Air Canada. Could the hon. member please clarify his statement that it would have no effect on Canadians?